Talk:Kansas City Royals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Kansas City Royals is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is related to WikiProject Kansas City, an attempt to write quality articles about the Missouri city of Kansas City and the surrounding Metropolitan Area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within Kansas City. Please rate the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Rivals?
I'm in Kansas City and know something of recent history (80s and forward) - I think some of the so-called "rivalries" seem far-fetched. I would propose that we list Minnesota and Chicago in the division (Minn. is the consistently good team in the division of late, and Chicago fans seem to be extra-feisty when we come there, attacking umpires and base-coaches), and the NY Yankees and St. Louis otherwise (from old playoff battles in the early 1980s). I could see keeping Detroit as a division rival, but I don't really see Milwaukee or Toronto as a rival of any sort. I'll leave this open for thoughts for a couple days before I make the change... ESkog 21:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Some Ann Nonymous has been posting those so-called "main rivalries" on every ball club's page, with no apparent basis in many cases. I recommend you list "Traditional Rivals" (if any, e.g. the Yanks and Cards) and "Divisional Rivals", which could simply be a list of every team in the division, although I'm not sure Detroit is anyone's rival at the present time. K.C. has not been around long enough to have a true ancient rivalry such as Yanks-BoSox, Cubs-Cards, Dodgers-Giants, etc. In other words, feel free to do it right, from your knowledge as a Royals fan, in lieu of the questionable stuff posted already. Wahkeenah 22:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
agreed
Is WHB the flgaship or WIBW? Did WIBW regain status this year? I think WHB is, but I maybe wrong...it could have been WHB lost rights due to poor signal.
[edit] Streak info
Wondering if anyone has any opinions about the streak information in the "Franchise History" section - my thought is that we should condense it, list and all, to about one sentence which mentions that a 19-game losing streak happened. If this information is useful somewhere, I don't think it's here. ESkog 03:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I put it there because at the time it was a dubious "target" of the Royals. Now that their streak is broken, I don't see much point in having it there. Maybe a list of the longest losing streaks on a standalone page (along with the longest winning streaks) would be a useful entry. Maybe there already is one... I just didn't happen to find it. Wahkeenah 04:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] No Rosters?
Consider adding current rosters to keep this page up to date with the other MLB wikipedia pages. Thanks! Cheesehead Fan 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I added them. Cheesehead Fan 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alex S. Gonzalez
The non-roster invite at shortstop on the Royals squad for this year is not Alex González, but rather Alex S. Gonzalez. And I don't know how to change it, because it seems like it's a template and I don't know how to access it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MysticalGenesis (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] POV?
Is the sort of NPOV language that is rampant in this article (e.g. "The sad days") typical for an MLB article? If not, would anyone mind a cleanup of the history section? Vygotcha 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nickname
One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames. They've been added to the leads as well as the infoboxes. However, the Royals are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article. What nicknames do the Royals go by? I'm sure they are not known only as "The Royals". - Silent Wind of Doom 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't think of any real nicknames. The Boys in Blue is used occassionally, but I don't think it is a proper nickname. Kgwo1972 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
But never the R's, I've lived in Kansas City my whole life, I have NEVER heard them referred to them as that. I'm removing it from the article.204.126.2.5 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen the name R's, but I have never heard it used orally. It's been used occasionally as shorthand of sorts, in Royals forums on the web. Someone may have seen it used in that context and thought/assumed its use was more common than it really is. Jonneroo (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- "The Boys in Blue" is still in the article - does it belong? SixFourThree (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
[edit] History
Someone started a page for the History of the Kansas City Royals last month, and cut-and-paste the entire "History" section from this page. To avoid confusion (since both pages were being edited separately), I have removed the "history" section from this page and merged it with the History of the Kansas City Royals page. Someone should work on expanding the historical blurb left on this page to a couple of paragraphs if we are going to retain the separate History page, however. Kgwo1972 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, the Royals seem to be the only team (among those I quickly checked) with a separate history page. I would be in favor of deleting the History of the Kansas City Royals and moving the history back to this main page. Anyone else?Kgwo1972 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that is incorrect. The Yankees page has always been a very big page, given the sheer amount of history and other notes, and everyone has been trying to get it as a good article or featured. As the most frequent complaint was that the article was waaay too long, the history was seperated, although the complete transition has not been made. Eventually, there will likely be little blurbs of each section of the history. The Red Sox have followed suit, but their page is currently just a copy of the history.
- For you guys, I'd suggest the seperate page only if the history is making the page too long (check the Yankees page for an example of history that's getting too big). If it's not too big (New York Mets, Milwaukee Brewers), or there's not much more on the page (Cleveland Indians), I'd say leave the history on the main page and delete the extra article. PS, any Royals nicknames would be appreciated. :) - Silent Wind of Doom 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and leave the History article with all the information there is so that everything people have contributed is saved. But trim down the history section in the main Royals article to a reasonable size. See Chicago Bears and History of the Chicago Bears as well as New England Patriots and History of the New England Patriots to see what I mean. Timpcrk87 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Repeated info
Why are Franchise history, Quick facts, Players of note, and Current Roster on the page twice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luke J-School (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know either, I've looked it up and down and can't see a reason for it. We definitely need a better editor to look at this than me. Imasleepviking 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I fixed the problem and removed the tag. Timpcrk87 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kaufman Stadium
Kaufman is a gorgous stadium, with the fountains, the great grass, Slugger, the mascot. Is there a seperate page about Kaufman Stadium? If there isn't, there should be something about it on this page. --HPJoker 17:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check out Kauffman Stadium (two f's). (ESkog)(Talk) 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Radio
There seems to be some confusion over what the radio station is the flagship station of the KC royals. If I remember correctly it was 980 KMBZ up until the 2004 season then it was changed when 810 WHB bought the rights over 980 and 610 sports.
Now after glancing over a few articles over the KC area there seems to be confusion. There are many pages saying 580 WIBW including this article is the flagship, while other like the 97.3 espn KC and 810 say different.
Now based on the offical website offical website and a few supporting websites [1] I would like to chanage to show that WHB is the flagship but would like to hear other peoples thoughts. Natural number is e 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Name
Has anyone noticed the common theme between the names of several Kansas City sports teams, both present and past: Royals, Chiefs, Monarchs, Kings? Before reading this article, I had always assumed there was an intentional connection, but the article would suggest that the Royals' name had nothing to do with any other connection to other local sports teams having names signifying monarchy, royalty, or leadership. Is there any connection that can be verified, and if so, is this worthy of inclusion? Jonneroo (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Juat coincidence. Royals named after American Royal, Chief was a nickname of the kansas city mayor Harold Roe Bartle, The Kings where originally named the Royals before moving to Omaha/Kansas city so they changed their name to something similar. The only connection is the Kings/ Royals as they didn't want two teams in the same city having the same nickname. Natural number is e (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder, though, how the Kansas City Monarchs settled on their name. That's not covered in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- To Natural number is e, thanks for the explanation. Jonneroo (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder, though, how the Kansas City Monarchs settled on their name. That's not covered in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Similarity to Montreal Royals logo
I'm going to remove this sentence from the second paragraph: "The script "Royals" logo, with the "s" tail underlining the word, is similar to that of the old Montreal Royals minor league team." This smacks to me a little bit like OR, not to mention that script lettering with a tail is pretty standard baseball iconography, used by the Baltimore Orioles, Oakland Athletics, Los Angeles Dodgers, St. Paul Saints, Long Island Ducks and other examples too numerous to mention in the major, minor and independent leagues. If anybody can provide documentation that the team was named after the Montreal club, or that any similarity in the logos was intentional, then we should put it back in. Until then, doesn't seem like it belongs in an article about the Kansas City Royals. SixFourThree (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
[edit] Team Name
The Royals name is more of a tribute to the Kansas City Monarchs than the American Royal horse show as evidenced by the teams logo featuring a crown at the top. Ewing Kauffman chose "Royals" after a name-the-team contest citing the widely held opinion that the Monarchs (over time) were the best team in the history of Negro Leagues. The connection with the American Royal is merely a happy coincidence.
[edit] Radio
KCSP 610 is the current flagship station (2008). KMBZ, WHB and WIBW have all been flagships in the past.
